New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitration clause interpretation

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2022

MASON v TRIEZENBERG [2022] NZCA 138

Citation

[2022] NZCA 138
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 15 of Mamari 1 did not constitute an arbitration agreement ousting Court jurisdiction; the 11 March 2018 deeds purporting to remove and appoint trustees were invalid because the power of appointment/removal resided in the joint settlors (and the deed specified alternatives) and s 43 did not permit unilateral action by one living settlor; given appellant's sustained hostility, incapacity to act impartially and persistent interference with trust administration, the Court properly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to remove him as trustee of both trusts to protect beneficiaries and t…
29 Jul 2021

SRG GLOBAL REMEDIATION SERVICES (NZ) LTD v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2021] NZHC 1929 _x000b_

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1929
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to appeal because SRG identified arguable legal errors of general significance: (1) whether the Court may exercise its discretion to stay enforcement of a CCA-derived judgment pending determination of a counterclaim where enforcement would cause a substantial miscarriage of justice despite s 79 CCA; and (2) whether the dispute resolution/arbitration clause in NZS3910:2013 s 13 becomes inoperative after the contractual one-month trigger following the final payment schedule. Both issues are novel, capable of bona fide argument and of sufficient public or commercial impor…
20 Nov 2018

LUSTY v MAGILL [2018] NZHC 3006

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3006
Court

High Court

The District Court's summary claim for legal fees falls within the scope of the partnership arbitration clause because the indemnity agreement is intertwined with and a development of the partnership deed; there is a bona fide dispute as to the amounts and accounts, so under art 8 sch 1 Arbitration Act 1996 the proceedings must be stayed and the parties referred to mediation and, if necessary, arbitration.
6 Jul 2018

OMV NEW ZEALAND LTD v PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LTD [2018] NZCA [240]

Citation

[2018] NZCA
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 44.3 operates as an exception to the lease's arbitration clause (cl 44.1) and permits the landlord to bring court proceedings for unpaid rent; a tenant may plead a defence that rent is not payable, but set-offs and counterclaims arising from alleged breaches or misrepresentations are for arbitration; therefore the High Court rightly refused to stay the landlord's summary judgment proceedings and the appeal is dismissed.
8 Sept 2017

MIRAKA LIMITED v MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2163

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2163
Court

High Court

The Court found there is an arguable dispute over contractual construction and factual matters that fall within the parties' agreed arbitration regime; 'commencing arbitration' was interpreted to require appointment of an arbitrator so the contractual 30 day fallback had not been triggered; accordingly the Court must stay the High Court proceeding and refer issues to arbitration and cannot grant summary judgment on the record before it.
20 Jul 2015

VLIETSTRA v MALCOLM FLOWERS INSURANCES LTD [2015] NZHC 1681

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1681
Court

High Court

The applicant established that he may be entitled to claim relief in the Court and that the alleged new 2014 discussions could found a claim outside the 1992 employment/arbitration agreement, but he failed to show it was impossible or impracticable to formulate his claim without the sale and purchase agreement; accordingly pre-commencement discovery under r 8.20 is declined.
1 Sept 2014

TAMIHERE v MEDIAWORKS [2014] NZHC 2082

Citation

[2014] NZAR 1113
Court

High Court

There was at least a prima facie case that both the breach of contract and defamation claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the 2013 contract because the disputes relate to the provision of services under that contract; accordingly the Court granted a stay and referred the parties to arbitration, and interpreted clause 20(e) as requiring the contractual dispute resolution steps to be exhausted before court proceedings (subject to interlocutory relief).
6 Dec 2013

WILES & ORS v BRANT HOMES LIMITED & ORS [2013] NZHC 3246

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3246
Court

High Court

Clause 75 must be read in harmony with clause 74 and the contract as a whole; clause 74 gives a party the right to commence arbitration after mandatory mediation, and clause 75's wording (including 'if both agree') relates to the form/number of arbitrators rather than creating a requirement of mutual consent to refer the dispute to arbitration. Therefore there is a binding arbitration agreement and the plaintiffs' application to set aside the protests to jurisdiction is dismissed.
27 Mar 2013

HEALTHLINK LIMITED V ORION SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-1167

Citation

openlaw-584f53b8_ac8c_44ed_ba9e_fbd430a24ecb.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the first and third defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement in the licence between the plaintiff and the second defendant; payments to the non‑signatories could be explained by delegation or authorisation from the contracting party rather than by their accession to the contract; therefore the defendants could not compel arbitration against the first and third defendants, and while a stay was appropriate, a permanent stay as to those non‑signatories was refused and the claims against them were stayed only until further order (the stay as to the second defendant…
19 Dec 2006

SCENIC CIRCLE (ROTORUA) LIMITED V PRINCES GATE HOTELS LIMITED AND PRINCES GATE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ANOR HC ROT CIV 2006-463-658

Citation

openlaw-5fa91f7a_47fc_4890_9e9c_7e949c41c448.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 22 must be read as making the arbitral process commence only when the arbitrator's appointment was secured (either by the President or by a definitive agreement between parties); the parties never unequivocally appointed or confirmed an arbitrator or agreed the scope; therefore the arbitration never commenced, the three month limitation never began to run, Article 8(1) requires a stay and the High Court directed the parties to arbitrate in accordance with the agreement dated 21 May 2001.